- SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Apr 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01433 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 based on the PCT publication and Austin-Lane under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation will eliminate the overlap between this proceeding and invalidity at the district court. Unlike the other, related IPRs for which we discretionarily deny review (e.g., IPR2024-01432, -01495, & -01496), this proceeding does not involve references that fundamentally convey the same information as may be presented as system art in the Texas litigation. In light of the stipulation and nature of the asserted ground, we conclude that this ground strongly favors institution.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We conclude that the claim language reads on Austin-Lane’s disclosure of determining “a presentation method of the notification” such as “using an instant message to the notebook computer” (Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 39, 46), in combination with teachings regarding the device to which the notification is sent and the protocol used to deliver it. We further conclude that Petitioner has provided an adequate reason that skilled artisans would have looked to Austin-Lane’s teachings and combined them with the system described in the PCT publication, as discussed. We have further reviewed the uncontested aspects of the challenge to claim 1 (Pet. 43–58) and determine that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail proving obviousness of claim 1. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to unpatentability of at least one claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 of the ’948 patent is instituted on the grounds raised in the Petition; and” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of filing “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, with two or more years of experience developing and implementing graphical user interfaces for controlling server-based applications, including handling asynchronous notifications generated by those applications and web services, such as portal systems, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience” and “would have been familiar with common approaches for presenting information on a graphical user interface, including various layouts for presenting multiple elements, such as icons, widgets, windows, etc.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner describes further capabilities that such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like, and/or four or more years of experience in server-based applications” and that “[a]dditional experience may make up for a lack of education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt it and use “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed. We do not perceive a substantive distinction between the parties’ definitions, but note that Petitioner’s definition provides more detail about the capabilities of skilled artisans. Should either party believe that the definition of ordinary skill in the art affects a disputed issue in the trial, it should point out how and identify any potential dispute about the level of skill.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner notes that certain disclosures added to the April 2011 CIP application describe a “notification manager” to “determine the best alert notification method.” Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1110 ¶ 131; citing id. ¶¶ 90–93, 130–132, 145–147, 160). That does not mean that Petitioner construes the claim language to require determining the best method, only that disclosing a mechanism that “determine[s] the best alert notification method” provides written-description support for a requirement to “determin[e] a notification method.” Petitioner is clear in its position that the May 2009 application “does not describe how to determine a notification method or how to use ‘session data’ in the manner required by this claim limitation.” Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner asserts that the May 2009 application discloses “determining a notification method” through a channel alert server that can “determine the active devices of the subscriber . . . to provide a visual or auditory alert in the channel.” Prelim. Resp. 32 (quoting Ex. 1106 ¶ 39). That disclosure appears to address the claim language requiring an alert “based on the current state of the at least one external device indicated by the session data.” It does not, however, address the claim language “determining a notification method.” Patent Owner recognizes that Petitioner asserts disclosures in the prior art for “determining which devices to send the alert to, the protocols used to send the alert, and how alerts are presented.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). But when Patent Owner asserts that the May 2009 application discloses determining how alerts are presented, it points to paragraphs that do not support the assertion. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 23, 39). The first, paragraph 23, states that a “trigger may cause the information channel to change its appearance or to take other actions that may be implemented by the developer” and that “one action that may be implemented is to provide a notification to the user.” Ex. 1106 ¶ 23. Nothing about that indicates the system determines how an alert is presented. The second, paragraph 39, states that the channel alert server may “provide a visual or auditory alert in the channel” and that the “alert can appear as defined on other platforms.” Nothing about that indicates the system determines how an alert is presented. Patent Owner has not shown how the May 2009 application discloses a determining a notification method, as claimed. In Patent Owner’s view, Petitioner admits that the May 2009 application (which is the same as the asserted PCT publication) describes determining a delivery mechanism because Petitioner compares it to Austin-Lane, stating that the PCT publication “already includes a channel alert server that determines the active devices of the user and delivers an alert to the user’s device” and “discloses setting the same type of alert (stock alert) and presenting it in the same way (visually) as Austin-Lane.” Prelim. Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 54) (emphasis omitted). But simply delivering an alert does not necessarily mean the notification method for that alert was determined. We conclude that Petitioner’s statement does not show the PCT publication discloses “determining a notification method” as claimed.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,751,948 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious: claim 1 over Cho, Aaron, and Carpenter; claim 2 over those references and de Geer; claim 3 over Cho and Aaron; and claim 4 over Cho, Aaron, and de …
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“application are similar, as indicated by the redline comparison of two provided as Exhibit 1015. Critically, however, the “Summary of the Invention” sections are completely different. Id. at 2–4. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable clarity, without the benefit of the Summary added for the ’286 patent/’674 application, that the ՚030 application describes a smart telephone that executes coded instructions to “convert the analog variable voltage audio signal received at the microphone port to the transaction data as digital data.”” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Here, although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. The evidence indicates that the claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data B1-Bn” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As discussed above in Section II.C, we construe the term “transaction data” as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. Again, we emphasize that claim 1 requires that the transaction data is accepted by the card reader from an output interface of the transaction card. Cho provides that card reader 230 reads a digital signal that includes account information of card 130 whereby the account information “may include at least one of an account number, a card expiration data, etc.” Ex. 1005, 5:54–58. We further agree with Petitioner that to the extent “transaction data” is for the purpose of conducting banking transactions, Cho’s account data of a credit card number and expiration date can perform that purpose. Patent Owner’s arguments that the transaction data cannot be “static” and that claim 1 requires “processing actual transaction-specific data” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. The claim does not recite any limitations that the transaction data be dynamic or “not static,” nor does it recite any processing of the transaction data outside of using it to “facilitate transactions.” Petitioner has shown that Cho teaches the claimed transaction data.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ John G New · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on all challenged claims, finding a sufficient likelihood that claims are anticipated or obvious under Grounds 1–10; it found Ground 11’s enablement challenge insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324, the Board “may not authorize a post-grant review to be instituted unless … the information presented in the petition … if such information is not rebutted would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” For the reasons we explain below, we institute post-grant review of the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“asserted reference qualifies as prior art is public accessibility. See In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “[A]t the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29, 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application (at top center). See Ex. 1001, code (60) (listing “provisional application No. 5,995,873, filed on Oct. 2, 2006”). However, simply to claim the priority benefit of an earlier application is not necessarily to receive it. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority.… Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120.”). As the diagram shows (and as we have verified), the ’529 application was a continuation-in-part of the preceding ’329 application. See Ex. 1001, code (63). However, the ’529 application was abandoned on February 10, 2016 (See Ex. 1052), and the succeeding application, U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 15,474,875 (the “’875 application”) which is listed in the ’943 patent as being a continuation-in-part of the ’529 application, was not filed until March 30, 2017. See Ex. 1001, code (63) (stating that “said application No. 15/474,875 is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/508,529”). Put simply, the ’875 application was not filed until over a year after the ’529 application was abandoned. As 35 U.S.C. § 120 states, in relevant part: An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 or 385, which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. (emphasis added). In other words, if there is a “break in the chain” of priority caused by the abandonment or termination of an application claiming priority prior to filing of a subsequent application, the subsequent application loses the priority benefit of the abandoned or terminated application, as well as the priority benefit of all applications that antedate that abandoned or terminated application. Such is the case presently before us. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the abandonment of the ’529 application prior to filing of the continuation-in-part ’875 application broke the priority chain leading to the ’720 provisional application, and the ’943 patent cannot, therefore, claim the priority benefit of the ’720 provisional application’s October 2, 2006 filing date. Consequently, the earliest date of which the ’943 patent could possibly claim the priority benefit is that of U.S. Patent Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/403,680 (the “’680 provisional application”) (located at the top of the left branch of the “family tree” depicted above), which has a filing date of September 20, 2010. See Ex. 1001, code (60). Burnett (i.e., the ’329 application) was filed on October 2, 2007 and thus antedates the ’680 provisional application. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument fails based on the current record, and Burnett is prior art to the ’943 patent.” slip op. at 55
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) is not tenable. In deciding whether to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) in situations where only some of the challenges fall within its scope, we evaluate the challenges and determine whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting on all challenges. If so, the panel will evaluate whether the entire petition should be denied.” See USPTO, SAS Q&As (June 5, 2018) at D1, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf; see also Kansas State Univ. Res. Found., PGR2022- 00021, Paper 11 at 7–8 & n.3 (Vidal Feb. 24, 2023) (holding that “the Board will further evaluate … whether § 325(d) is sufficiently implicated that its statutory purpose would be undermined by instituting review on all challenges presented in the Petition”). We having instituted post grant review based at least upon claim 1 of Ground 1 of the Petition. Even if the panel agreed with Patent Owner that Grounds 5–8 present “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” previously presented to the Office, § 325(d) would not be “sufficiently implicated” due to the 7 other asserted grounds. We therefore do not proceed with the § 325(d) analysis established in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) and decline to exercise our discretion to deny the petition on that basis.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,844,943 - Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00630 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 under all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Koebler anticipates claims 1, 15, and 16 and that the asserted obviousness grounds succeed for at least some claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a trial, the Board will institute on all challenges raised in the petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the parties’ briefs and evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all asserted grounds.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“require the Enumerated Current Conditions to be determined by analyzing data from the Enumerated Sensors, and it is this claimed invention for which the specification must provide written description support. 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), 120. Although, as discussed above, the claim requires only one Enumerated Sensor and one Enumerated Current Condition, it additionally requires that data from the sensor be analyzed to determine the current condition. Thus, to support the full scope of the claims, Koebler must disclose that each of the Enumerated Current Conditions is determined by analyzing data from one of the Enumerated Sensors. Although Petitioner asserts that Koebler does not provide written description support for ten of the Enumerated Sensors (see Pet. 10–11), Petitioner focuses its arguments on three of the current conditions (moisture, an amount of vibration, and traction) (see id. at 15–20), and we likewise focus our analysis on these three current conditions. Petitioner’s arguments for these three current conditions are substantially identical, including that Koebler does not teach or suggest using data from an Enumerated Sensor to determine each of the three current conditions. See id. at 15–19.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artOther
“Thus, at this preliminary stage of the proceeding and based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Koebler does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’616 patent. For completeness, we note that we find Petitioner’s arguments that Koebler does not provide verbatim or synonymous disclosure of the words “moisture,” “vibration,” or “traction” (see, e.g., Pet. 15–16) unavailing, as there is no requirement for verbatim or synonymous disclosure in the prior application. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1323. Similarly, there is no requirement for “inherent disclosure” of the recited current conditions. See, e.g., Pet. 16–17. Rather, as explained above, the relevant inquiry is whether the application relied upon (here, Koebler) reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“Thus, under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,850,616 - PTAB · Aug 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00658 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled original claim 1, denied the proposed substitute claim as indefinite under § 112, and did not reach the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We have, on the complete record now before us, mainly the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Hatch, who testifies that the designer of ordinary skill in the art would be a person who has a bachelor’s degree in furniture design or an equivalent field or alternatively two years of practical experience designing furniture . . . [which] is appropriate given the relatively simple nature of the design at issue, which involves little more than two boards forming a tabletop. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–35. Based on the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of a designer of ordinary skill as it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Hatch. Id. ¶¶ 33–38. We also note that, based on the complete trial record, our” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In contrast, Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Williams, testifies based on his “experience[,] that tenons are generally included in the larger portion of two table top portions.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 55. However, Mr. Williams’ experience does not explain why an ordinary observer would understand such functional and ornamental characteristics of tenon and hole arrangements. Id. Nor does this testimony proclaim that tenons must be in the larger of two table top potions. Indeed, even considering an ordinary observer imbued with Mr. Williams’ level of expertise and experience, and understanding for instance that it may be more likely that the wider portion includes tenons, this does not resolve the glaring inconsistency that Figure 1 illustrates holes and Figure 8 illustrates tenons. In other words, Mr. Williams’ “experience” does not resolve the visible tension that, on one hand, Figure 1 illustrates holes as part of the claimed ornamental design in the wider portion of the table top, and on the other hand, Figure 8 illustrates tenons as part of the same wider portion of the table top. The problem here may be more eloquently explained as “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood[,] And sorry I could not travel both.” Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken, The Poetry of Robert Frost—The Collected Poems, 105, Henry Holt and Co. (1969). Considering the entire record before us in this case we credit Mr. Hatch’s testimony. The issue is not, as Patent Owner has framed it, whether “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the tenons and holes should be positioned on each of the table top portions.” Reply Opp. 7. The question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art viewing the design for a table top in the proposed substitute claim as would an ordinary observer, understand whether or not the wider portion of the table top as Figures 1 and 6, holes. As Mr. Hatch persuasively explains, in the proposed substitute claim a majority of the drawings for the wider portion, i.e., Figures 1–6, omit the tenons added in Figure 8. Ex. 1011 ¶ 37 (Mr. Hatch testifying that “Figure 8 is the only amended figure that adds tenons/dowels.”) Indeed, Figures 1 and 6 not only fail to illustrate tenons, but actually are amended to include holes rather than tenons, as described in the Motion to Amend. See, e.g., Motion to Amend 6 (Patent Owner describing, “Figure 1: Removal of disclaimer of a total of four holes by amending the outline of the four holes from broken lines to solid lines.”). On the complete record in this proceeding, we determine that a” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“On the complete record in this proceeding, we determine that a designer of skill in the art considering the claim from either their own, or the perspective of an ordinary observer, would be uncertain whether the wider portion of the claimed table top depicted in Figures 1–8 includes tenons, or holes. It is reasonable that anyone observing two distinct ornamental designs for the same wider portion of the table top would be unclear as to the claimed ornamental design where holes are shown in one figure but tenons are shown in another figure illustrating the same wider portion of the table top. Observing as a whole, the figures illustrating the table top in the proposed substitute claim, the question remains, does the wider portion of the table top include tenons, or holes? See Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376 (“Ultimately, a patent is indefinite for § 112 purposes whenever its claim, read in light of the visual disclosure (whether it be a single drawing or multiple drawings), ‘fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.’”) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014)). proposed substitute claim fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed substitute claim is indefinite and we accordingly deny Patent Owner’s Noncontingent Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 29
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Federal Circuit recently explained that “a design patent is indefinite under § 112 if one skilled in the art, viewing the design as would an ordinary observer, would not understand the scope of the design with reasonable certainty based on the claim and visual disclosure.” In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Maatita, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding of indefiniteness of a design for a shoe bottom, i.e., a shoe sole, finding that Maatita’s two-dimensional drawing clearly demonstrates the perspective from which the shoe bottom should be viewed. A potential infringer is not left in doubt as to how to determine infringement. In this case, Maatita’s decision not to disclose all possible depth choices would not preclude an ordinary observer from understanding the claimed design, since the design is capable of being understood from the two-dimensional, plan- or planar-view perspective [] shown in the drawing. Id. at F.3d 1378–79. Different from Maatita, the issue in this proceeding is not whether an ordinary observer would sufficiently understand a three-dimensional ornamental design from a two-dimensional figure, but whether inconsistencies between figures of the proposed substitute claim render the scope of the claimed table top uncertain. See Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376 (The Federal Circuit specifically distinguishing Maatita’s single two-dimensional drawing from indefiniteness issues raised by inconsistent drawings: “[h]ere, we are not dealing with inconsistencies in the drawings, or inconsistencies between the drawings and the verbal description, but” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus - Dental Recycling North America, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 19, 2024 · PGR2023-00055 · APJ Michael A Valek · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of post-grant review is authorized only when “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. Upon considering the present record, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden to show that it is more likely than not that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill (“POSA”) “would have been an individual with at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or at least 3 years of experience designing or manufacturing vacuums, filters, medical devices, or the related components.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–95). Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response, but asks its declarant to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art in his analysis. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 86. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner contends that “[a]ll terms of the ’175 patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSA,” but does not propose any express claim construction for consideration. See Pet. 22–23. Petitioner further asserts that the preambles of the independent claims are limiting. Id. at 23–25. Patent Owner argues “that claim construction is not necessary at this time,” but urges that “in the event the Board determines that claim construction is necessary, Petitioner’s proposal to construe the preambles of the independent claims as limiting should be rejected.” Prelim. Resp. 65. We need not determine whether the preambles of the independent claims are limiting to reach the outcome in this decision. Accordingly, no express claim construction is necessary here. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). D. Grounds 1–4 and Petitioner’s Related Priority Challenge” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has the better position. It is well settled that the original drawings may themselves be sufficient to provide description for later-filed claims. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1565 (holding that “drawings alone may provide a ‘written description’ of an invention as required by § 112”). That is the case here with respect to the original figures submitted with the Great-Grandparent application. We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Garris that original Figures 4A–B and 5B show a flange or “radially protruding structure” configured as in the challenged claims. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 106–113. Moreover, the original description in the Great-Grandparent application describes “removable retaining pins 13” that “ensure the recycling container,” i.e., container 12 in Figures 4A–B, “does not detach from the air-water separation tank 5 when there is no vacuum in the system.” Ex. 1002, 213 (¶ 92). Based on this description and the depiction of retaining pin 13 in the original Figure 2, a POSA would have understood that the pins engage with the radially protruding structure to hold the container in place as recited in the challenged claims. Ex. 2001 ¶ 114. Petitioner’s argument that the original figures do not depict the radially protruding structure and retaining pins working together to hold the container in place is unpersuasive. Patent Owner has sufficiently demonstrated that a POSA would have understood how the structures in original Figures 2 and 4A interact based on a side-by-side comparison of the same. See Pet. 38–43; Ex. 2001 ¶ 114. Indeed, the applicants made a similar comparison during prosecution, which proved persuasive to the Examiner. Ex. 1002, 87, 98. The Petition provides no reason to doubt that a POSA would understand the original figures and description just as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the fact that the specification and drawings were amended does not mean that Patent Owner had to add new matter to overcome the Examiner’s rejections. See Pet. 16– 17. In this case, the amendments to the specification during prosecution of the ’175 patent made the operation of the retaining pin and radially protruding structure, as shown by the original figures, even clearer. But that does not mean that the original description was inadequate.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,660,175 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724 - Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00608 · APJ Jamie T Wisz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–14, 17–19, and 21 as obvious over Teigen and Grey; claims 15–16 over Teigen, Grey, and Yang; and claim 20 over Teigen, Grey, and Matteo.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and claimed invention” to prevent hindsight bias. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“as adopted by the Board in the Institution Decision. The ’253 patent explicitly defines this term, stating: The term “forward flow” is used herein to define an amount of liquid in the lumen 662 that exits the distal end 664 in a distal direction. Forward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid (approximately 1 mm of catheter length of ID 0.071″=5.7 μL). Ex. 1001, 38:18–23 (emphasis added). Moreover, in discussing problems with the prior art systems, the ’253 patent states that “[w]hen positive pressure exists at the distal end of the lumen, liquid from inside the lumen exits out from the distal end of the catheter in a distal direction. This is referred to as forward flow.” Id. at 3:8–11. In the ’253 patent, the patentee acted as its own lexicographer as evidenced by usage of language such as “is used herein to define,” “is defined,” and “is referred to as,” to discuss “forward flow.” We find that the definition of “forward flow” in the ’253 patent specification would provide a person of ordinary skill with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” as to the meaning of the term. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; see also Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 13–14. Thus, we construe the term, “forward flow,” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that our construction imports limitations from a single embodiment into the claims. As explained above, the ’253 patent clearly defines the term “forward flow” and this definition is not limited to a single embodiment. In fact, the ’253 patent indicates that, while “[f]orward flow is defined as greater than 6 microliters of fluid . . . [l]ess forward flow is also included in this definition.” Ex. 1001, 38:21–24. The ’253 patent specifies that “the amount of forward flow can be restricted to no greater than 2 microliters or, in a particularly beneficial embodiment, forward flow is approximately zero microliters.” Id. at 38:24– 29. This language indicates that our construction encompasses multiple embodiments from the ’253 patent. We also disagree with Patent’s Owner’s proposed construction of “forward flow” because it is not supported by the ’253 patent specification. Patent Owner contends that “there is ‘no forward flow’ until the full extent of the distal portion” exits the distal end and thus forward flow is prevented when only less than “the full extent of the distal portion” exits the distal end. PO Resp. 9 (emphasis omitted). To adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we would have to essentially ignore the ’253 patent’s express definition of this term. Further, there is no support in the ’253 patent specification for “full extent” or “fully exiting.” We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s construction effectively eliminates the concept of preventing forward flow because, as Patent Owner acknowledges, it could allow, for example, 20 milliliters of fluid to exit the catheter, which could displace the thrombus into the patient’s vasculature, a problem that the ’253 patent seeks to avoid. See PO Resp. 10–12 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 48–51); Pet. Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 14–15).” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, we construe “forward flow” to mean “an amount of liquid in the lumen that exits the distal end in the distal direction that is greater than 6 microliters.” Thus, for the ’011 provisional to provide support for this limitation, the provisional must demonstrate that the inventors had possession of preventing greater than 6 microliters of fluid out of the distal end of the catheter. While Patent Owner points to disclosures from the ’011 provisional application that describe the desire to have “a minimal amount of momentum transfer from the fluid column to the stuck clot to unstick the clot sufficiently” and “[t]he exiting movement of fluid [being] limited to a specific volume and/or pressure and is automatically and precisely controlled” to prevent the “possibility of overshooting,” these disclosures would not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of a device that limited forward flow to no greater than 6 microliters of fluid. PO Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15, 16, 138). Patent Owner also contends that the ’011 provisional application provides “multiple examples of liquid flow exiting the distal end of the catheter such that no forward flow occurs, such as 1 microliter or 0.5 mm of column shift.” PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91). However, the disclosure cited by Patent Owner provides ranges of liquid flow of “approximately 0.001 ml to approximately 1.0 ml, in particular, approximately 0.1 ml to approximately 0.5 ml” and exemplary length of shift distances of “approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 30 mm, in particular, approximately 0.5 mm to approximately 15 mm.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. There is nothing in the ’011 provisional application that specifically directs the person of ordinary skill to the portions of these ranges that fall within the ’253 patent’s definition of “forward flow” (i.e., no greater than 6 microliters of fluid). In fact, the majority of the cited ranges are greater than 6 microliters, going all the way up to 1,000 microliters, such that there would be forward flow in these examples. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 25; Purdue Pharma, 230 F.3d at 1326–27 (“[O]ne cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest and say here is my invention. In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the blaze marks directing the skilled artisan to that tree must be in the originally filed disclosure.”); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, we note that the ’253 patent differentiates between embodiments that allow forward flow and embodiments in which no forward flow occurs. See Ex. 1001, 32:58–60, 37:19–22; Pet. Reply 10–11. For example, the ’253 patent describes an embodiment in which the “momentum causes a small amount of fluid to move through the distal portion of the catheter [] and create a small distal movement of the clot.” Ex. 1001, 32:47– 51. This same embodiment is disclosed in the ’011 provisional application. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 126 with Ex. 1001, 32:16–60. The ’253 patent describes this disclosure as an “exemplary embodiment” in which the “flow of fluid forward . . . is intentional, which is in contrast to other exemplary embodiments herein where substantially no forward flow occurs.” Ex. 1001, 32:57–60; see also, id. at 37:19–22 (“Turning now to embodiments . . . without the forward flow”).8 The ’011 provisional application does not include the subsequent embodiments from the ’253 patent that are described as being “without the forward flow.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 68; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 22–23. This further demonstrates that the ’011 provisional application does not support the limitation of “prevent[ing] forward flow.” We also note that the ’011 provisional application does not contain adequate support for the limitation of “substantially prevent[ing] forward flow” even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. While the ’011 provisional discloses “controlling the distal movement of the fluid column” (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15, 16), this does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the ’011 provisional teaches that “the distal portion of the fluid column is substantially prevented from fully exiting the distal end.” PO Resp. 35–36. For example, as discussed above, the ’011 provisional application discloses permitting distal flow of up to 1,000 microliters, which would likely exceed the amount that could be characterized as the full distal portion. Ex. 1003 ¶ 91; Ex. 1034 ¶ 25. Thus, we find that the ’011 provisional application does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventors] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 8 Patent Owner contends that the statement in the ’253 patent regarding the “exemplary embodiment” of “forward flow” is referring to an embodiment in which the volume of the liquid drawn out from the lumen of the catheter is “approximately 0.2 ml.” PO Resp. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1001, 32:35–36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 126; Ex. 2014 ¶ 99). Even if this is correct, the ’011 provisional application does not include the embodiments that the ’253 patent specifically characterizes as being “without the forward flow.” Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 1005 ¶ 68; Ex. 1034 ¶ 22–25.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Based on the above, we determine that, for prior-art determinations under AIA § 102, “there is no need to evaluate whether any claim of [a reference] patent document is actually entitled to priority or benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120.” MPEP § 2154.01(b) (emphasis added). Rather, under the AIA, a reference patent document need only meet the “ministerial requirements” of §§ 119 and 120, and the provisional or other earlier application(s) to which the reference patent document claims a right of priority must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Patent Owner has not contested that Teigen meets the procedural requirements for claiming priority to the ’712 patent or the ’095 PCT application. Teigen also appears to meet the ministerial requirements for claiming priority to the provisional applications because it properly claims the benefit of these applications, the ’095 PCT application was filed co-pending with the provisional applications, and the applications share common inventors. Ex. 1007, codes (22), (60), (63), (72); Ex.1008, 2; Ex. 1009, 2; Ex. 2005, codes (22), (30), (72). Patent Owner does not dispute that Teigen meets the “ministerial requirements” of § 119. Because we find that the Dynamic Drinkware analysis does not apply here, we agree with Petitioner and Patent Owner, that we need not reach the issue of whether a claim from Teigen is supported by either Teigen provisional application. PO Sur-Reply 8; Pet. Reply 12–13.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,722,253 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,722,253 - Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00016 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–13, 16, and 17 unpatentable as obvious over Rice and Warner, Rice, Warner, and Sotokoshi, and Baudhuin-429 and Sotokoshi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we accept as undisputed that the plain and ordinary meaning of “coupled” is attached, joined, or combined. In a vacuum, based solely on the plain and ordinary meaning of “coupled,” elements joined together only by a wired connection would be “coupled.” b. Intrinsic Evidence However, we cannot look at the ordinary meaning (i.e., joined) of “coupled” in a vacuum. “Rather, we must look at the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (quoting Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The “proper definition is the definition that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain from the intrinsic evidence in the record.’” Id. at 1314 (quoting Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift–Eckrich, Inc., 375 F.3d 1341, 351 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The intrinsic evidence in the record includes the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. 1) Claims “Coupled to” appears in four limitations in claim 1 (and in similar limitations in claim 14): • “a set of handlebars that is coupled to the frame and that provides” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“2. Motivation to Combine Rice and Warner In order to demonstrate obviousness, a petitioner must demonstrate that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to combine the teachings of the prior art in the manner claimed in the patent and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (2007). “To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’).” Id. at 418.” slip op. at 69
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“with Petitioner. “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 at 1378 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). Accordingly, Petitioner must show that the ’460 application does not provide written description support for the ’240 patent claims. (Consistent with the Petition, the following discussion will cite to Ex. 1017, which is a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,021,277 B2, that issued from the ’460 application.)” slip op. at 80
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“1. Nexus Patent Owner contends that a presumption of nexus applies here. PO” slip op. at 87
Patent outcomesUS 9,694,240 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,694,240
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.